Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Review of the cooperation and operation of microgrid clusters

F. Bandeiras a, E. Pinheiro a, M. Gomes a, b, *, P. Coelho a, b, J. Fernandes a
a
Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal
b
Smart Cities Research Center (Ci2-IPT), Tomar, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Multiple microgrids can operate when interconnected and form a cluster of microgrids, in which each individual
Microgrid cluster system benefits from this cooperation during grid-connected and islanded modes. Therefore, the contents of this
Control paper address the concept of microgrid clusters by providing a review of the literature research conducted to­
Energy management
wards the project and development of smart grids. Several aspects regarding the operation of microgrid clusters
Electrical protection schemes
Energy trading
are introduced, including control and energy-management strategies and architecture configurations in terms of
Internal energy market layout, power conversion technology and line frequency technology. A brief comparison of these control stra­
tegies and architecture configurations is also provided. In the field of electrical protections, most of the electrical
protection schemes being proposed in the literature are applied exclusively to individual microgrid systems. Even
though only a handful of works and studies focus on the protection of multiple microgrids, this paper contributes
a review of electrical protection schemes currently available in the literature for microgrid clusters. In addition, it
also addresses energy trading among multiple microgrids and introduces three energy-market designs suitable for
implementation in microgrid clusters to facilitate energy trading among the participating prosumers, producers
and customers. Finally, a case study is presented to evaluate the cooperation among five industrial microgrids
operating in a cluster during islanded mode using an internal market. Each microgrid participating in the
network can sell or buy excess energy in order to fulfil its own power requirements. To this end, an algorithm was
developed in Matlab, allowing the coordination of the hourly energy trade among these microgrids through three
market models with market clearing price/quantity in asymmetric pool.

initially emerged not only as a way of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)

1. Introduction
A microgrid (MG) is a small-scale electrical power grid which con­
sists of microgeneration units, storage units and controllable loads. MGs
are intended to ensure efficient energy management by coordinating the
available energy resources at their disposal. This can only be success­
fully achieved by taking economic, technical and environmental con­
cerns into consideration. Moreover, several control and protection
devices ensure that the MG is capable of handling both grid-connected
and islanded operation modes in the safest, most optimal way possible
[1]. During grid-connected operation, the MG is connected to the public
grid at the point of common coupling (PCC), enabling active interaction
with the distribution system operator (DSO). During islanded operation,
the MG is disconnected from the public grid and manages the available
resources in order to ensure a continuous supply of power to the critical
loads. MG systems can, in fact, increase the quality and reliability of the
power supplied to the loads, and mitigate the environmental impact
from the use of fossil fuels [2,3]. The project and development of MGs
emissions associated with the use of fossil fuels, but also as a way of
solving the power supply crisis in isolated and remote locations with
defective and unreliable distribution grids and of guaranteeing the
reliability of the power supply in critical facilities with high security
requirements (e.g. airports, hospitals, data centres, military in­
frastructures) [4].
The widespread implementation of MGs can contribute a significant
portion of the global energy required and eventually replace conven­
tional natural gas and coal-fired power plants. In the first quarter of
2020, Guidehouse Insights identified 6610 MG projects which have been
proposed, planned and deployed around the world, representing a
combined installed power capacity of around 31.8 GW [5]. Even though
the number of MG systems has been rapidly increasing, it is not yet
nearly large enough to completely cover the energy supplied by con­
ventional power generation systems. However, it cannot be denied that
MGs have been successful at addressing the growing energy demand and
environmental issues and at providing several technical and economic
benefits. Industrial and commercial buildings can effectively benefit

* Corresponding author. Instituto Politécnico de Tomar, Tomar, Portugal

E-mail address: mgomes@ipt.pt (M. Gomes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110311
Received 10 March 2020; Received in revised form 19 August 2020; Accepted 24 August 2020
Available online 2 September 2020
1364-0321/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

List of abbreviations IGBT Insulated-Gate Bipolar Transistor

IPFC Interline Power Flow Controller
AC Alternating Current LC Load Controller
ADMM Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers MC Microsource Controller
BTB Back-to-Back MG Microgrid
CAMC Central Autonomous Management Controller MGCC Microgrid Central Controller
CB Circuit Breaker MO Market Operator
CCG Canonical Coalition Game P2G Prosumer-to-Grid
DC Direct Current P2P Peer-to-Peer
DER Distributed Energy Resources PCC Point of Common Coupling
DG Distributed Generation PLC Power-Line Communications
DMS Distribution Management System PoA Proof-of-Authority
DSL Digital Subscriber Lines PoS Proof-of-Stake
DSO Distribution System Operator PoW Proof-of-Work
EMPC Distributed Economic Predictive Control PV Photovoltaic
ESS Energy Storage System QoS Quality-of-Service
FIS Fuzzy Inference System RES Renewable Energy Sources
GHG Greenhouse Gas SOCP Second-Order Cone Programming
HIF High Impedance Fault SSCB Solid-State Circuit Breaker
HUCC Hybrid Unit of Common Coupling WLS Weighted Least Square
ICT Information and Communication Technology WMN Wireless Mesh Network
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission WT Wind Turbine
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

from MG systems, especially to mitigate potential voltage drops in
quarries, mines and other extractive enterprises which are usually
located far away from population centres, or to prevent significant
financial losses in commercial buildings such as hypermarkets and
shopping malls which require a robust power supply. An MG owned by
industrial and commercial organizations will mainly focus on economic
targets and the reliability of the power supply, while an MG owned by a
government or military entity is likely to focus more on energy security
and safety. Utility-owned MGs aim at serving customers with special
local needs and at ensuring service quality along the distribution grid
[6].
The traditional way to produce and use energy has been transformed
into a share of energy due to the increased penetration of distributed
energy resources (DER) into the power systems. This share of energy has
turned passive consumers into active prosumers responsible for sharing
their excess electricity generated by renewable energy sources (RES)
with the grid or other consumers [7,8]. Current energy markets and
conventional distribution grids may not be fully prepared to deal with a
more decentralized share of energy. The implementation of smart grids
and MG systems can facilitate this energy trading among prosumers
through new and reorganized energy-market designs.
Therefore, this paper contributes to the project and development of
MG clusters and smart grids by providing a review of the most relevant
works presented in the literature. The concept of MG clusters has been
extensively discussed in the literature, focusing mainly on control and
energy management of networked MGs and energy-market designs for
energy trading among MG systems. In addition, some of the works
presented in the literature address the architecture and layout of MG
clusters to aid the coupling of multiple MGs. Meng et al. in Ref. [9]
perform a review of control and energy-management schemes for MGs
and clusters of multiple MGs, predominantly dealing with the control of
individual MG systems. The work in Ref. [10] provides a review of
several challenges associated with the deployment of MGs and addresses
some of the literature contributions made regarding MG clusters. Alam
et al. in Ref. [11] present an extensive review of the works presented in
the literature regarding the operation of networked MGs. This research
presents a review of electrical protection, cooperation, and operational
aspects of MG clusters, not comprehensively addressed in the existing
technical literature. This includes control and energy-management
strategies, architecture configurations and energy-trading schemes, as
well as electrical protection schemes currently available in the literature
for MG clusters.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the concept
of MG clusters and recent trends in their development. Section 3 con­
centrates on the control and energy management of interconnected MGs
by providing a comparison of different types of control architectures and
a review of the most relevant works carried out based on each control
architecture. Section 4 addresses protection challenges associated with
the operation of MGs and presents a brief comparison of electrical
protection schemes proposed for MG clusters. Section 5 focuses on the
architecture of MG clusters in terms of layout, power conversion tech­
nology and line frequency technology. Section 6 addresses energy
trading among multiple MGs and introduces energy-market designs
suitable for implementation in MG clusters. Section 7 presents a case
study to evaluate the cooperation of five industrial MGs and coordinate
their hourly energy trade in islanded mode through three distinct market
models with market clearing price/quantity in asymmetric pool. Finally,
section 8 presents the main conclusions.
2. Clusters of MGs
The concept of MG can be extended to a larger scale, in which two or
more MGs operate interconnected with each other to form a cluster of
controllable MGs. The interconnection of multiple MGs can be recog­
nized as a viable solution to mitigate the unstable operation of indi­
vidual MGs during islanded operation and provide numerous economic
benefits to both the utility grid and the MG systems participating in the
network. Each MG can also take advantage of the increased reliability
and stability, enhanced security and reduced costs associated with the
cooperation among multiple MGs [8]. During a blackout of the utility
grid, individual MGs may fail to deliver a reliable and stable power
supply to the critical loads due to the high penetration of
non-controllable and weather-dependent RES. This can be overcome by
interconnecting multiple MG systems and enabling them to support each
other by sharing resources during emergency situations [12,13]. For
instance, MGs with abundant energy can supply their excess energy to
the critical loads of MGs lacking in generation and stored energy.
However, the coupling of multiple systems requires the design and

2
F. Bandeiras et al.
development of control and energy-management architectures to allow
safe and reliable operation of the entire MG cluster during
grid-connected and islanded mode, as well as new energy-trading
techniques to ensure all the potential benefits from the integration of
multiple MGs. Fig. 1 shows a brief diagram of an MG cluster containing
four distinct interconnected MGs connected to the utility grid, in which
each square of land shown inside the MG cluster represents an individual
MG.
The development of clusters of MGs has been extensively discussed
and several energy-management frameworks have been proposed in the
literature [9]. In Ref. [14], the operation of MGs and MG clusters is
analysed in both low-voltage and medium-voltage networks using
electricity market prices. This study shows that MG clusters lead to
economic benefits in terms of end-users cost reduction, active losses
elimination and emission reduction. Vasiljevska et al. in Ref. [15]
describe control and management functionalities to guarantee profit
from microgeneration units and loads in clusters of MGs. This is made
through multi-criteria decision aid techniques to evaluate the impact of
deploying clusters of MGs and select the best deployment strategy based
on a cost analysis. Liu et al. in Ref. [16] suggest a new real-time pricing
scheme based on the deployment of clustering techniques to allow each
MG operator to assign real-time prices to the load patterns of each
customer in the cluster. This also helps in identifying the type of con­
sumer and their respective load curves in order to define the best de­
mand response programs for each consumer. In Ref. [17], an
agent-based intelligent energy-management system is proposed to
facilitate the trade of energy among MGs and promote demand response
programs. This study uses a system with two MGs and introduces the
concept of priority index for customers participating in demand
response in accordance with the size and number of participation times.
The results showed a reduction in peak demand depending on the
amount of load participation in demand response during peak times and
customers with higher priority index were able to obtain power supply
at lower market prices. Nikmehr et al. in Ref. [18] study the benefit and
impact of demand response programs for optimal scheduling of a
network of multiple MGs containing several types of RES under a new
management system, while addressing the drawbacks of conventional
energy-management systems. Moreover [19], addresses two MGs oper­
ating in isolation from the utility grid and exchange energy between
each other using a peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture to minimize the total
power generation and transportation costs.
Fig. 1. Physical layout of an MG cluster containing four distinct interconnected MGs connected to the utility grid: (1) Community MG; (2) Commercial MG; (3)
Residential MG; (4) Industrial MG.
3
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
2.1. Non-cooperative game theory
Non-cooperative game theory is used in strategic decision-making
processes involving different players. It is usually associated with so­
cial phenomena in which there is some kind of conflict and it is not
possible to combine strategies or establish agreements between players.
However, this does not always mean that players cannot cooperate with
one another, it simply implies that there is no coordination or commu­
nication between players in the strategic decision-making processes.
Non-cooperative game theory has been applied in smart grid and MG
applications in the context of energy markets, dynamic pricing, real-
time monitoring, and demand-side management [20]. Chen and Zhu
in Ref. [21] use a game-theoretic framework based on non-cooperative
game to study the strategic behaviour of multiple MGs in a power dis­
tribution system while taking into consideration economic factors and
technical factors such as stability and efficiency. Liu et al. in Ref. [22]
propose a distributed coordination control scheme to address energy
trading between multiple MGs in an electricity market environment
using non-cooperative game theory. In this case, the use of a control
scheme based on cooperative game would not be viable, because the
MGs have multiple coexisting beneficiaries and it may be very difficult
to reach an agreement among them.
2.2. Cooperative game theory
While the outcome of non-cooperative games is defined by the ac­
tions of each individual player and by the payoff each player achieves,
the outcome of cooperative games is defined by the forms of collabo­
ration between players within a group (i.e. coalitions), and its cooper­
ative and self-organization actions. In cooperative game theory, players
decide to form coalitions in order to make more effective decisions and
maximize their benefits. Frameworks of cooperative game theory have
been applied in the concept of smart grids to study and analyse the
cooperative behaviour among groups of MGs [23,24]. Prete and Hobbs
in Ref. [25] analyse the price, cost and benefit of the MG development
using a cooperative game theory framework. The authors conclude that
utility customers can obtain most of the benefits associated with the
development of MGs. In Ref. [26], a cluster of multiple independent MGs
is considered and the price competition among these interconnected
MGs is analysed using a game theory framework in which Nash Equi­
librium is computed and its uniqueness is shown. Du et al. in Ref. [27]
present a coalitional model for the cooperation and operation of mul­
tiple grid-connected MGs using the concept of cooperative game theory
F. Bandeiras et al.
to ensure a fair cost share among the MGs, and thus the economic sta­
bility of the coalition.
3. Control and energy management
The control and energy management of interconnected MGs can
follow different architectures in order to ensure the optimized and co­
ordinated operation of each system during grid-connected and islanded
modes while guaranteeing minimal costs of operation. These architec­
tures can be centralized, decentralized, distributed or hierarchical.
Other variations of the control and energy-management architecture
include the use of multi-agent technology or system-of-systems struc­
tures. Usually, the control of MG clusters is organized in multilayers or
in a hierarchical hybrid fashion with certain control layers being
implemented in a centralized or decentralized manner.
Most of the control and energy-management schemes require two-
way communication links to transmit data between the various con­
trollers, sensors and devices in the network. Reliable and resilient
communication can be achieved through a broad spectrum of wired and
wireless communication technologies [28]. Wired technologies include
power-line communications (PLC), digital subscriber lines (DSL) and
optical fibre, while wireless technologies include Wi-Fi, WiMAX,
Cellular 3G/4G, ZigBee and Bluetooth [29,30]. The choice of appro­
priate technology is mostly dependent on characteristics such as
coverage area, data rate and operating frequency [28]. In smart grid and
MG applications, ensuring acceptable levels of quality-of-service (QoS)
in terms of latency, capacity, reliability and availability is a difficult and
demanding task due to the complexity of data traffic in these networks.
A wireless mesh network (WMN) topology with efficient routing pro­
tocols (i.e. multi-hop) and QoS mechanisms can be suitable for this type
of application and provide QoS guarantees to the network [30,31].
During the last decade, several works have been presented in the
literature to address the challenges of control and energy management
in developing clusters of MGs [7]. The existing works often focus on
economic aspects of the operation of MG clusters and on control stra­
tegies which coordinate their operation. In Ref. [32], a
multi-agent-based centralized-decentralized hybrid hierarchical energy
management is proposed for the optimization of distribution systems
containing multiple MGs. Kou et al. in Ref. [33] present a distributed
economic predictive control (EMPC) scheme for the coordinated sto­
chastic energy management of MG clusters, and compare it to the
no-cooperation and centralized schemes. The proposed scheme showed
lower operating costs and a better balance between performance and
feasibility when compared to the no-cooperation and centralized
schemes. In Ref. [34], a distributed optimal control framework is pro­
posed in order to coordinate and achieve optimal control in clusters of
MGs. This framework uses two control levels for each MG to optimize
the generation output of multiple MGs and to track the optimal gener­
ation setting of each DG unit during grid-connected and islanded oper­
ation mode. In Ref. [35], a hierarchical control scheme is presented to
solve the problem of controlling frequency and active power in a
network containing multiple MG systems. In Ref. [36], a multi-agent
control system for MG clusters is proposed to control and manage a
region containing multiple MGs. This control system allows the use of
plug-and-play and P2P capabilities to improve consumer participation
and power system resiliency. In Ref. [37], a distributed control-oriented
hierarchical and distributed multi-agent system architecture is pre­
sented as a reliable and flexible control scheme for clusters of MGs. In
Ref. [38], a system of systems framework is presented to optimally
operate an active network containing a distribution company and mul­
tiple MGs. The system of systems operation is modelled using a decen­
tralized optimal power flow problem and a hierarchical algorithm with
two control levels is applied to coordinate the operating points of all
systems in the network. Zhao et al. in Ref. [39] also propose a hierar­
chical decentralized system of systems architecture for the optimized
management of energy in a grid-connected MG cluster, and assess the
4
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
advantages of implementing a system of systems energy management.
Korres et al. in Ref. [40] propose a state estimator based on weighted
least square (WLS) algorithm using few real-time measurements at the
transformer substation and distributed generation (DG) units, and
pseudo measurements for consumer load estimation. The MG cluster
control scheme is required to operate with distinct control levels using
local microsource controllers (MC), load controllers (LC), an MG central
controller (MGCC) and a central autonomous management controller
(CAMC) serving as an interface to the distribution management system
(DMS). Moreover, Madureira et al. in Ref. [41] propose a control
strategy for the operation of MG clusters based on a hierarchical and
decentralized control scheme to ensure system autonomy and redun­
dancy. In addition to the coordinated voltage and frequency support
functionality of the CAMC, the robustness of the proposed scheme pro­
vides an efficient use for local state estimation. Vasiljevska et al. in
Ref. [42] present a control functionality to manage DG units, energy
storage devices and active loads in clusters of MGs to prevent overload
and voltage drop in the medium-voltage network. This functionality
deals with inter-temporal relations of the energy-storage devices and
active loads which are subjected to different constrains. In Ref. [43], a
multi-objective optimal power flow algorithm is presented to improve
the performance of MG clusters using interline power flow controller
(IPFC). The proposed algorithm considers the control variables of the
IPFC and minimizes the operation costs of the MG cluster, energy losses
and bus voltage profile deviations. In Ref. [44], a coordinated optimal
control algorithm modelled as a decentralized partially-observable
Markov decision process (POMDP) is presented to coordinate the oper­
ation of networks containing multiple MGs. In Ref. [45], a coordinated
control strategy is proposed for the coordination of multiple networked
MGs and a DSO with distinct objectives using stochastic formulation.
Recently, Ghomali et al. in Ref. [46] propose and demonstrate for the
first time in the literature the effectiveness of a comprehensive optimi­
zation and real-time control framework using an algorithm based on
mixed-integer second-order cone programming (MISOCP). Further­
more, several algorithms based on alternating direction method of
multipliers (ADMM) have been proposed for the decentralized and
distributed energy management of networked MGs [47,48].
A comparison of typical control schemes for energy management in
clusters of MGs is presented in Table 1.
3.1. Centralized
In the centralized control approach, a single central controller de­
termines the control actions of all local MCs and LCs in the system, as
briefly represented in Fig. 2(a). The central controller coordinates the
optimal operation of the entire system with data gathered and received
from the local units. Therefore, the operation of each MG system
participating in the cluster is controlled and coordinated by the central
controller. This control structure is simple and easy to implement due to
the use of a single central controller [32]. However, large amounts of
data are processed and confined in one location, resulting in a single
point of failure which compromises the entire cluster operation [33].
Another downside is the fact that systems with centralized control
structures are often unable to expand into larger and more complex
networks. Moreover, because the central controller needs to receive data
and send control signals to all local units, two-way communication is
required between the central controller and each local unit [32,33].
Song et al. in Ref. [49], propose an optimal energy-management method
for a cooperative MG cluster integrated with a centralized control and
energy-management system.
3.2. Decentralized
In the decentralized control approach, each local controller de­
termines its own control actions and decisions based on data provided by
local measurements, as briefly represented in Fig. 2(b). The local MCs
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

Table 1 addition, security may be compromised since all data is shared among
Comparison of control schemes for energy management in clusters of MGs. multiple dispersed systems [33,34]. In Ref. [51], a distributed control
Advantages Disadvantages algorithm using ADMM is proposed for the energy management of a MG
cluster in order to minimize costs of operation. The proposed method
Centralized [32, • Offers a simple control • Unable to expand to larger
33] architecture with a single and more complex networks allows each MG to perform generation and load forecast independently
central controller • Requires communication without sharing important information regarding their operation.
• Low operation costs links between central
controller and local 3.4. Hierarchical
controllers
Decentralized • Suitable for the • Complicated control tasks
[32,33] coordination of multiple due to the lack of a central In a hierarchical control structure, the system is divided into multiple
autonomous systems controller control layers with distinct control tasks and goals, as represented in
• Provides autonomy to each • Decrease in aggregate Fig. 2(d). Therefore, the operation of each MG system participating in
individual system with no performance due to
the cluster is controlled and coordinated through multiple and distinct
communication among competitiveness among
systems individual systems control layers. For instance, the hierarchical control of a MG cluster may
Distributed [33, • Impacts to the aggregate • Data is shared among operate with multiple MCs and LCs in the first control layer, the MGCCs
34] performance are considered individual systems in the second control layer and the CAMC in the third control layer
and control tasks shared by compromising security which serves as an interface to the DMS [35]. This approach requires
each individual system • Requires communication
• Provides cooperation links between the
coordination methods between upper and lower layers, either in a more
among individual systems neighbouring systems centralized top-down hierarchy or in a less centralized bottom-up hi­
Hierarchical • Provides flexible layered • Susceptibility to failure due erarchy [32]. Because only adjacent layers can exchange data and units
[32,35] control of networks with to the strong dependency located at the same layer cannot share information with each other, all
multiple systems between lower and upper
the control decisions at the lower layer are strongly dependent on the
• Offers a cost-effective solu­ control levels
tion with easy implementa­ control state of the upper layer. This compromises the entire system in
tion and low operation costs the event of communication failure [32,35]. In Ref. [52], a two-layer
Multi-agent [36, • Solves the coordinated • Uses several dispersed hierarchical cooperative control method is proposed for networked
37] control problems by using agents that require MGs consisting of a distributed control layer for each MG to perform
autonomous and intelligent communication links to
agents interact with each other
frequency/voltage regulation and a decentralized control layer for the
• Offers network scalability entire MG cluster to enable the regulation of power flow through the
and plug-and-play PCC of each MG.
capabilities
System of • Aims to achieve the overall • High operation costs
3.5. Multi-agent
systems [38, goal of a multi-system
39] structure
• Offers flexibility and Distributed control based on multi-agent technology includes mul­
adaptability to a range of tiple autonomous and intelligent agents dispersed in the system. Unlike
decentralized controls the conventional agents of the distributed control scheme, these
advanced control agents can solve much more complex coordination
and LCs operate autonomously and coordinate their optimal operation problems in order to achieve a common or individual goal [37]. This
without relying on communication among each other. Therefore, each approach also offers high network scalability and enables plug-and-play
MG system participating in the cluster is responsible for gathering local capabilities. However, all the control agents in the scheme are inter­
data in order to coordinate its optimal operation. This approach offers linked, requiring communication links to interact with each other [36,
autonomy and increased stability to each unit while providing robust­ 37]. Zhai and Wang in Ref. [53] provide a multi-agent consensus algo­
ness against communication failures [32]. A decentralized control rithm to solve the real-time cooperative power dispatch problem of
structure also allows systems to easily scale up in size and complexity. islanded MG clusters and minimize costs associated with power
However, this approach cannot ensure the optimal operation of the regulation.
entire cluster, due to the absence of communication links and the overall
performance may be jeopardized by the increased competitiveness 3.6. System of systems
among individual units [32,33]. In Ref. [50], a decentralized
energy-management system is proposed for the coordinated operation of Control based on a system-of-systems structure integrates and co­
MG clusters during both grid-connected and islanded mode in a distri­ ordinates several autonomous systems to form a larger and more com­
bution system where the DSO and each MG are considered to constitute plex system capable of achieving a goal or task which could not be
distinct entities with individual goals. achieved by a single system or a group of uncoordinated systems [39].
All the systems are connected and coordinatively share their resources in
order to optimize the entire cluster operation and achieve the overall
3.3. Distributed goal. While this approach offers flexibility to a wide range of decen­
tralized controls, it is associated with high operational costs [38,39]. In
As depicted in Fig. 2(c), the distributed control approach relies on Ref. [54], a centralized model based on a system-of-systems structure is
various centralized controllers or central agents to coordinate the proposed to achieve optimal energy management of a cooperative MG
operation of the local units. Each central agent uses data provided by cluster.
other neighbouring agents and information from local MCs and LCs.
Hence, the operation of each in MG systems participating in the cluster is 4. Electrical protection schemes
controlled and coordinated by multiple dispersed central agents which
take account of the aggregate performance. This mitigates the compet­ Setting the appropriate electrical protections in MG systems to
itiveness among individual systems. In this approach, the coordination ensure safe and reliable operation in both grid-connected and islanded
among distributed agents allows the optimal performance of the entire modes can be problematic [55]. While traditional distribution networks
cluster to be achieved [33]. However, two-way communication is contain only unidirectional power flows, the MG protections must be
required to allow data to be shared between individual agents. In suited to deal with bidirectional power flow. This issue becomes much

5
F. Bandeiras et al.
Fig. 2. Control schemes for MG clusters: (a) Centralized; (b) Decentralized; (c) Distributed; (d) Hierarchical.
more severe when operating a cluster of MGs, in which bidirectional
power flow occurs between the utility grid and the cluster of MGs as well
as among neighbouring MGs. The connection of several DG units
considered to be of intermittent nature, such as photovoltaic (PV) sys­
tems and wind turbines (WT), may cause fluctuating fault current levels
during islanded operation mode [56]. Moreover, MGs operating in
isolation from the utility grid produce relatively low fault currents,
which may not be identified and detected by some protection devices.
The use of protection devices without proper selectivity may also cause
false tripping when the MG is operating in grid-connected mode [57,58].
Therefore, conventional protection systems may not provide complete
protection and cannot be implemented to solve the protection problems
of MGs and MG clusters during both grid-connected and islanded
operation mode. In the event of an external fault (e.g. fault in the utility
grid), the system needs to operate in islanded mode and provide a
reliable supply of power to the critical loads. Generally, in the event of
an internal fault (e.g. fault in one of the MG feeders), the desired
response is to quickly isolate the smallest section possible in order to
enable the non-faulty sections to remain in operation [1].
Numerous electrical protection schemes have been proposed in the
literature focusing on the protection of individual AC and DC MGs in
both grid-connected and islanded operation mode [59,60]. An IEC
standard on AC MGs specifies some technical requirements for DER in
MGs, for MG connection to the distribution system, and for electrical
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
protection systems [61]. The IEEE also recommends a practice for MG
electrical system design, safety, power quality monitoring and control,
electric energy measurement and scheme evaluation [62]. Even though
literature contributions for the electrical protection of MG clusters are
scarce, a few studies can be found in the literature regarding the elec­
trical protection of MG clusters. In Ref. [63], a fault analysis is per­
formed and reported for an MG cluster operating in islanded mode in
order to study the characteristics of different internal faults. The results
obtained from this study show that a cluster of MGs produces much
higher fault currents than a single MG. In Ref. [64], a flexible protection
scheme is proposed for islanded MG clusters using controllers,
communication links and protection strategies such as differential pro­
tection, directional protection and high impedance fault (HIF) detection.
This scheme isolated small faulty sections of the MG cluster and adapted
to the increased fault currents associated with the interconnection of
multiple MGs. Abdali et al. in Ref. [65] propose a protection scheme
integrated with control interface based on fuzzy inference system (FIS)
protection for MG interconnected systems. This method enables fast
fault detection, reduces protection costs and allows switching equip­
ment with lower rated insulation capacity due to reduced switch peak
voltage when compared to the differential protection. Yaqobi et al. in
Ref. [66] propose the integration of bidirectional solid-state circuit
breakers (SSCB) based on insulated-gate bipolar transistors (IGBT) for
high-speed protection of an isolated MG cluster. Recently, Zhang and Mu
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

in Ref. [67] suggest a protection scheme to identify and locate internal Table 3
faults in MG clusters based on voltage and current distribution charac­ Comparison of interconnection layouts, power conversion technologies and
teristics of the line parameters. The location of the fault is determined by power line frequency technologies for clusters of MGs.
comparing the phase differences and amplitudes of the measured feeder Advantages Disadvantages
admittances. Table 2 summarizes the electrical protection schemes Interconnection layout [69,70]
proposed in the literature for clusters of MGs. Parallel • Enables utility grid to be • Requires individual systems
supported by each individual to be self-sufficient during
5. Power system architecture system and offers increased faults in main distribution
reliability during faults grid
Series • Allows individual systems to • High susceptibility to
A network containing a power utility grid and multiple MGs can be support each other during stability issues when
arranged in different configurations [11,68]. Each MG in the region can faults in main distribution operating disconnected from
be connected to the utility grid through its PCC in a cluster of parallel grid main distribution grid
MGs, or all the MGs can be interconnected in a cluster of series inter­ Parallel • Allows individual systems to • Complex system with high
series support utility grid and/or protection and
connected MGs. Both configurations can be combined in a cluster of each other during emergency communication requirements
parallel-series MGs. In this case, some MGs are connected to the utility situations
grid, while others are interconnected in series followed by at least one Power conversion technology [69]
PCC to the utility grid [69,70]. In addition, the choice of interconnection Transformer • Provides reliable and cost- • Low controllability and
effective AC/AC voltage operation performance
and power line frequency technology needs to be taken into consider­
transformation
ation. MGs can be interconnected through power transformers in AC Converter • Offers good operation • High protection and
lines or through power converters in AC and DC lines. Power trans­ performance with active communication requirements
formers normally provide a reliable, cost-effective and non-controllable voltage regulation and high with high system costs
AC/AC voltage transformation in the interface of the utility grid and the controllability
Power line frequency technology [69,71,72]
MGs. On the other hand, most power converters offer an interconnection
AC line • Provides transformer • Requires P/Q control and
with a high level of controllability over AC or DC parameters [69]. In compatibility and uses mature frequency monitoring
Refs. [71,72], the performance of AC and DC technology in MG systems protection techniques
is addressed and discussed. Table 3 presents a brief comparison of DC line • Offers increased efficiency • High costs in terminal
and reduced losses due to equipment and difficulty in
interconnection layouts, power conversion technologies and power line
constant currents and fewer dealing with fault currents
frequency technologies for clusters of MGs [69–72]. conversion stages with low due to no zero-crossing point
Shahnia and Bourbour in Ref. [73] analyse various architectures of variety of faults and no
MG clusters and propose a suitable synchronization strategy to safely electromagnetic interference
interconnect neighbouring MGs. This strategy aims to decrease the
duration of abnormal voltage/frequency drops in overloaded MGs and
architecture for MG clusters which uses a hybrid unit of common
prevent the participating MGs from being temporarily overloaded dur­
coupling (HUCC) as an interface instead of the conventional PCC. This
ing the transition stage. Wu et al. in Ref. [74] present a novel
HUCC allows MGs to be connected to the utility grid via AC lines and
connected with each other via DC lines, which improves the flexibility
Table 2 and controllability of the MG cluster. In Ref. [75,76], back-to-back
Protection schemes proposed for clusters of MGs. (BTB) voltage source converters are used to interface interconnected
MGs. Furthermore, Goyal and Ghosh in Ref. [77] address the support
System Operation Study remarks Limitations
capabilities from the interconnection of two islanded MGs during con­
Gopalan [64] AC Islanded • Allows • Requires tingencies. This study shows the possibility of interconnecting an MG
et al. mode system to communication
isolate links to operate
operating in frequency-droop control with an MG operating in
small faulty angle-droop control through a BTB converter. Majumber and Bag in
sections and Ref. [78] suggest a control method to operate and coordinate parallel
adapt to MGs connected through BTB converters, allowing the autonomous
increased
operation of each MG without instabilities. Yoo et al. in Ref. [79] pro­
fault
currents pose the implementation of multi-frequency control in BTB converters in
Abdali [65] DC Grid- • Enables fast • Requires high- order to manage and improve the frequency regulation of isolated MG
et al. connected fault speed commu­ clusters. The proposed scheme for BTB converters offers a simple
and detection nication and approach for the regulation of multiple MG frequencies without
islanded and allows synchronization
mode equipment
communication requirements. Designs of flexible interconnection
with lower schemes and strategies for the interconnection of multiple MGs are
rated proposed and presented in Ref. [80,81].
insulation
capacity
6. Energy trading
Yaqobi [66] DC Islanded • Relatively • High cost
et al. mode fast short- associated with
circuit semiconductor Deploying several non-controllable RES with intermittent nature
interruption breakers results in unpredictable power generation. Certain customers may not be
technology able to generate enough power to supply their loads when the MG
Zhang [67] AC Grid- • Offers • High impedance
and connected simple and faults may not
cluster is operating in islanded mode. P2P energy trading allows cus­
Mu and flexible be detected in tomers to directly trade their excess energy with other customers and set
islanded fault load feeders their own terms and prices, without using a central entity as an inter­
mode detection mediary. This energy-trading scheme enables a fully decentralized and
with high
transparent internal energy market among the participating prosumers
sensitivity
and and customers. Both utility companies and grid costumers can take
reliability advantage of the benefits associated with energy trading in terms of

7
F. Bandeiras et al.
increased grid efficiency and reduced costs of grid operation [82]. In
Ref. [83], the feasibility of the cooperation between prosumers in
establishing a participation in P2P energy trading within a network is
assessed, and a P2P energy-trading scheme is proposed using canonical
coalition game (CCG) to allow a coalition of prosumers to trade energy
with each other. In Ref. [84], the design, implementation and assess­
ment of an energy market for energy trading in smart grid neighbour­
hoods is presented and discussed, showing the viability of implementing
this type of market. In Ref. [85], an energy-management optimization
problem to minimize energy costs and P2P sharing losses in a network
containing multiple MGs is proposed by transforming it into an equiv­
alent second-order cone programming (SOCP) problem. This study
showed that the cooperation scheme in the P2P energy-trading network
is affected by the relative location of each MG cooperating. Zhang et al.
in Ref. [86] identify and categorize important elements and technologies
associated with P2P energy trading, demonstrating potential benefits of
this energy trading in MG systems. In Ref. [87], the energy trading
within an MG with P2P prosumers is studied. An energy-sharing model
with priced-based demand response is proposed by formulating the in­
ternal energy price model and cost model of prosumers. Recently,
Tushar et al. in Ref. [88] introduce a motivation psychology framework
for smart grids consisting of several motivational models which each
prosumer needs to satisfy in order to participate in energy trading. A P2P
energy-trading scheme was also developed for this study using CCG,
demonstrating how a P2P energy-trading scheme can be designed and
developed under a motivation psychology framework.
Several advanced information and communication technologies
(ICT) such as blockchain and cryptocurrency can provide the efficiency
and security required to benefit from P2P energy-trading markets in
smart grids and MG clusters.
6.1. Blockchain technology
Blockchain is an incorruptible digital ledger which records every
financial transaction permanently in a decentralized fashion [89].
Basically, it is composed of interconnected blocks where transactions are
recorded. When completed, the block is stored in blockchain as a per­
manent database and then a new block is generated. Each block in the
chain contains a reference to the previous block [90]. Blockchain was
originally created as the fabric for cryptocurrency, but its potential and
application in the energy market has significantly increased in the last
few years. In addition, blockchain technology allows digital information
to be duplicated thousands of times and shared among every peer,
meaning that data is stored and hosted in multiple points without a
single point of failure. Depending on the access to the ledger, blockchain
can be classified as either public (i.e. permission-less) or private (i.e.
permissioned) [90,91]. Public blockchains are completely decentralized
in nature and allow any anonymous entity to participate in the network,
while private blockchains only allow known and authorized entities to
participate in the closed network governed by a single entity. Both types
of blockchains rely on consensus mechanisms in order to verify and
validate the transactions. These consensus mechanisms include, among
others, proof-of-work (PoW), proof-of-stake (PoS) and
proof-of-authority (PoA) [90].
The applications of blockchain technology in smart grids are
numerous. For instance, blockchain can facilitate automated billing
systems, help identify consumer energy patterns, improve control of
decentralized systems and provide security and privacy to energy and
data transactions [92,93]. Mengelkamp et al. in Ref. [94] present the
concept of an MG energy market based on blockchain technology
without relying on a central entity to allow local energy trading in a P2P
fashion among the participating agents. This energy market is success­
fully applied to the real-world case of the Brooklyn MG. Wang et al. in
Ref. [95] propose a multidimensional willingness billing strategy to
allow P2P energy trading among MGs through a paralleled
energy-trading framework based on blockchain technology.
8
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
Cryptocurrency has also been proposed to allow a reliable and safe trade
of energy in smart grids [96].
6.2. Energy-market designs
Recently, multiple projects on P2P energy trading have been devel­
oped for prosumers and MGs in terms of energy-market designs, business
models, load control and ICT systems [97]. According to the literature,
the existing prosumer energy markets can be categorized into fully
decentralized and less structured P2P models or into more structured
prosumer-to-grid (P2G) models [98,99]. A P2P energy market is a fully
decentralized model which allows all the participating peers (i.e. pro­
sumers and producers) to trade energy with each other directly,
providing an autonomous and flexible internal market. A P2G energy
market is a structured model which relies on a community manager
controlling all the energy trades inside the community as well as any
interactions with other community managers in the grid (e.g. commu­
nities of prosumers connected to an MG) [98,99]. The P2P and the P2G
models can be combined in a hybrid market model. This hybrid model
consists of prosumer groups which rely on a central entity such as a
community manager controlling the energy trades, but these groups and
other peers can trade energy with each other in a P2P manner [98,100].
The typical structure and brief comparison of each prosumer
energy-market model according to Ref. [98], is presented in Fig. 3 and
Table 4.
7. Case study
This section presents a case study to evaluate the cooperation among
autonomous MGs participating in an MG cluster. This cooperation al­
lows each MG to share its resources with other neighbouring MGs in
order to ensure a continuous supply of power to the critical loads during
islanded operation mode. Depending on the installed capacity and
location, certain MGs may be able to produce more than the amount
they require to supply their critical loads. Taking this into account, these
MGs with excess energy can supply the loads of neighbouring MG sys­
tems with deficit energy if they are located in the same distribution grid
[84,85]. The concept of MG clusters can play an important role in a
scenario where MGs with excess energy cooperate with MGs with deficit
energy by exchanging excess energy. To facilitate this energy trade
among individual systems, an internal energy market needs to be
implemented to ensure transparency in the trade offers between sellers
and buyers. This internal energy market can be either centralized or
decentralized. Centralized market approaches differ from decentralized
approaches in such a way that a central entity known as the market
operator (MO) is necessary to establish market clearing prices and
quantities in each trading period (i.e. periods of 1 h) in accordance with
bids or offers made by the participating players. In decentralized market
approaches such as in P2P energy trading, an MO is discarded and each
consumer trades directly with the suppliers [95]. Market clearing in
asymmetric pool requires bids from either demand or supply players and
their respective amount of energy. In contrast, market clearing in sym­
metric pool requires bids from both demand and supply players. This
forms the social welfare area which is denoted by the area between the
demand and supply bid curves. The aggregation of the demand and
supply bids follows a certain merit order. Demand bids are arranged in
descending order from the highest bid to the lowest bid, while supply
bids are arranged in ascending order from the lowest bid to the highest
bid [101].
The energy trade in the cluster during islanded operation mode is
made using an internal market with hourly energy trading periods and
market clearing price/quantity in asymmetric pool. Therefore, three
market models are analysed in this case study, including an asymmetric
model for sell offers, an asymmetric model for buy offers, and a
sequential asymmetric model for both sell and buy offers. An algorithm
is developed in Matlab, allowing coordination of the energy trade among
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

Fig. 3. Prosumer energy markets: (a) P2P model; (b) P2G model; (c) Hybrid model.

installed renewable generation capacity, energy storage system (ESS)

Table 4
capacity and load profiles. The network is divided into two distinct
Comparison of prosumer market models (based on [98]).
zones. Zone 1 can operate both in radial or ring configuration by
Projects Advantages Disadvantages opening/closing switch S1 and consists of MG1, MG2 and MG3, while
Peer-to- • Piclo (United • Facilitates direct • Unable to guarantee zone 2 operates only in radial configuration and consists of MG4 and
peer Kingdom) financial safe and high-quality MG5. In this study, the MG cluster is disconnected from the main dis­
model • Vandebron transactions delivery of energy
tribution grid and operates autonomously for an entire day (i.e. 24 h).
(Netherlands) among individual • High
prosumers in fully implementation and Each MG is connected to the cluster through a MV/LV step-down
decentralized maintenance costs transformer. Fig. 4 represents the simplified single-line diagram of the
fashion due to diverse and 11-bus network containing the five MGs under study. The simulations
• Offers flexibility decentralized presented in the following sections are made with switch S1 in the closed
and autonomy to networks
state.
each prosumer and
customer The energy consumption under normal operation corresponds to the
Prosumer- • NOBEL • Promotes the • Difficulty integrating operation of each MG at full rated power. During islanded operation
to-grid (Europe) integration of and managing large mode, each MG reduces its energy consumption in order to ensure a
model multiple amounts of data from
continuous supply of power to the critical loads. Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 show
prosumers into numerous prosumers
cooperative
the load profile of each MG in normal and islanded operation sce­
communities narios for every hour of the day.
• Provides various
services and high-
quality energy de­ 7.2. Algorithm for energy trading in MG clusters
livery due to part­
nerships among
An algorithm allows multiple MGs to perform an exchange of excess
numerous individ­
ual prosumers
energy in order to compensate for the periods of time when one or more
Hybrid • REV (United • Aims to serve the • Difficulty integrating MGs require a supply of energy, allowing autonomous operation of the
model States) interests of and managing large entire cluster when disconnected from the main distribution grid (i.e.
communities, amounts of data from utility grid). The algorithm, developed in Matlab, determines the energy
organizations or prosumer groups
balance of each MG for every hour of the day. Fig. 7 presents a brief
groups of • Complex transaction
prosumers and management flowchart of the algorithm developed.
• Provides various costs within each The energy balance of each MG being studied is determined using the
services and high- group of prosumers input data available for each prosumer. Input data includes hourly PV
quality energy de­ generation, WT generation, ESS capacity and energy consumption. In
livery due to part­
nerships among
addition, input data also includes the price in €/kWh for which each MG
limited numbers of sells or buys excess energy. The next steps of the Matlab script use the
prosumer groups function “linprog” and the open-source package “MATPOWER” for the
three market clearing models. The function “linprog” allows the optimal
solution to be identified for a specific linear problem defined by
the MGs.
inequality constraints, equality constraints and boundaries. This func­
tion is structured in accordance with each market clearing model. The
7.1. MG cluster under study open-source package “MATPOWER” is used in the algorithm to allow the
analysis of power flow and determine losses in the network under study.
The MG cluster under study includes five industrial MGs dispersed in For this case study, the default case file has been used as template and
the network. Each MG corresponds to a distinct prosumer with different adapted in accordance with the parameters of the network under study.

9
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

Fig. 4. Simplified single-line diagram of the MG cluster being studied.

Fig. 5. Load profile of each MG in normal operation.

In the algorithm developed, the matrices corresponding to each field are to supply their excess energy in accordance with their respective energy
updated in each time instant. This includes values of active and reactive market prices. The amount of power subjected to load-shedding is
power in loads and generators determined by the algorithm or imported associated with a high cost as a penalty for any non-compliance of the
from the database for each bus of the network. energy supply. The objective function for this problem is given by (1):
Model 1 – Sell offers. This first model consists of sell offers in n ( )
∑
asymmetric pool made by MGs with excess energy. Therefore, each MG min ΔPGipv + ΔPGiwt + ΔPGib × CGi + PLshed × Cshed (1)
sets a specific price for its excess energy, and offers are ranked based on
i=1

ascending order of energy price as represented in Fig. 8. where ΔPGipv , ΔPGiwt and ΔPGib are the amount of excess power generated
In this model, MGs only ensure the supply of the critical loads,
by PV panels, WTs and stored in battery systems for each MG, CGi is their
meeting their minimal energy consumption. If the total excess energy
respective energy cost, and PLshed is the amount of power subjected to
cannot meet the total energy demand, load-shedding is applied to the
load-shedding which is associated with a high cost value Cshed . This high
MGs with deficit energy in a proportional manner. The main objective is
cost is a penalty for any non-compliance of the energy supply, being
to optimize the cost of the energy trade between individual MGs.
required to safeguard each market offer made by the MGs with excess
Therefore, if at least one MG requires a supply of energy from other
generation. This function is subjected to the following inequality
neighbouring MGs, the function “linprog” will select the best candidates
constraint (2):

10
F. Bandeiras et al.
Fig. 6. Load profile of each MG in islanded operation.
ΔPGipv + ΔPGiwt + ΔPGib ≤ ΔPGitotal , i = 1, …, n (2)
where ΔPGitotal is the total amount of excess power generated available in
each MG, which can be determined by adding together all of the excess
power generated by PV panels, WTs and stored in battery systems.
The equality constraint of the problem is given by (3), as follows:
∑
n
( )
ΔPGipv + ΔPGiwt + ΔPGib + PLshed = ΔPLtotal (3)
i=1
where ΔPLtotal is the total amount of power consumed by all MGs
participating in the cluster.
Finally, the objective function is also limited to both upper and down
boundaries given by (4):
⎡
ΔPGipv
⎤ ⎡
PGipv
⎤ where ΔPLitotal is the total amount of power needed to supply all the
⎣
0 ≤ ΔPGiwt ≤ PGiwt ⎦
⎦ ⎣
, i = 1, …, n (4)
ΔPGib PGib
0 ≤ PLshed ≤ ΔPLtotal
where PGipv , PGiwt and PGib are the amount of power generated by PV
panels, WTs and stored in battery systems for each MG. These values are
directly imported from the database of each MG. The amount of load-
shedding cannot exceed the total amount of power consumed by the
entire cluster and needs to be greater than or equal to zero.
The solution obtained from “linprog” corresponds to the amount of
excess energy supplied by one or more MGs with the lowest energy cost
if there is at least one MG with deficit energy. These values are also
required to update the state of the ESS in each MG for the next time
instant. Moreover, the solution also includes the amount of load needing
to be shed when the total amount of deficit energy is larger than the total
amount of excess energy in the cluster. Then, market clearing price and
quantity graphs in asymmetric pool for sell offers are obtained using the
amount of load-shedding, excess energy and deficit energy.
Model 2 – Buy offers. This model consists of buy offers in asymmetric
pool made by MGs with deficit energy. Therefore, MGs with deficit en­
ergy set a price for the quantity of energy they require, and each offer is
ranked based on descending order of energy price, as represented in
Fig. 9.
In this model, MGs also must ensure the supply of the critical loads,
meeting their minimal energy consumption. If the total excess energy
cannot meet the total energy demand, the excess energy is exchanged
with the MGs which offer the highest price for that amount of energy.
The function “linprog” will select the best candidates to receive the
excess energy in accordance with their respective energy market prices.
11
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
In other words, one or more MGs are selected to receive the excess en­
ergy at the highest possible cost. The objective function for this problem
is given by (5):
∑
n
max ΔPLi × CLi − PGspill × Cspill (5)
i=1
where ΔPLi is the amount of deficit power needed to supply critical loads
in each MG, CLi is the respective energy cost, and PGspill is the amount of
power subjected to energy spill which is also associated with a high cost
value Cspill as a penalty. This function is subjected to the following
inequality constraints (6):
ΔPLi ≤ ΔPLitotal , i = 1, …, n (6)
critical loads in each MG.
The equality constraint of the problem is given by (7), as follows:
∑
n
ΔPLi − PGspill = ΔPGtotal (7)
i=1
where ΔPGtotal is the total amount of excess power generated available in
the MG cluster, which can be determined by adding together all of the
excess power generated by PV panels, WTs and stored in battery
systems.
Finally, the objective function is also limited to both upper and down
boundaries given by (8):
0 ≤ ΔPLi ≤ PLi
, i = 1, …, n (8)
0 ≤ PGspill ≤ ΔPGtotal
where PLi is the amount of power required in each MG. These values are
directly imported from the database of each MG. The amount of energy
spill cannot exceed the total amount of excess energy generated by the
entire cluster and needs to be greater than or equal to zero.
The solution obtained from “linprog” corresponds to the amount of
excess energy received by one or more MGs if there is at least one MG
with excess energy. These values are also required to update the state of
the ESS in each MG for the next time instant. Moreover, the solution also
includes the amount of energy spill needing to be spilled when the total
amount of excess energy is larger than the total amount of deficit energy
in the cluster. Then, market clearing price and quantity graphs in
asymmetric pool for buy offers are obtained using the amount of energy
spill, excess energy and deficit energy.
Model 3 – Sell or buy offers. This sequential model is a hybrid of the
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

Fig. 7. Algorithm flowchart for model 1 and model 2.

Fig. 8. Sell offers ranked based on ascending order of energy price. Fig. 9. Buy offers ranked based on descending order of energy price.

12
F. Bandeiras et al.
two previous models. It consists of either sell or buy offers in asymmetric
pool made by MGs with excess or deficit energy. If the total excess en­
ergy exceeds the total deficit energy, each MG sets a price for the unused
excess energy in order to increase its energy consumption beyond the
supply of critical loads and to attempt to meet its normal energy de­
mand. Like the previous model, buy offers are ranked based on
descending order of energy price. The excess energy is exchanged with
the MGs which offer the highest price, as represented in Fig. 10. This
ensures that any unused excess energy is not wasted, depending on the
operation cycle of each MG and whether batteries can be charged or not.
On the other hand, if the total excess energy does not exceed the total
deficit energy, sell offers and energy exchanges are made pursuant to
model 1.
In this case, the algorithm follows the same function structure as
model 1, which selects the best candidates to supply their excess energy
based on their respective energy market prices to meet the total deficit
energy in the MG cluster at the lowest possible cost. Then, the algorithm
follows the function structure of model 2 if the amount of excess energy
exceeds the amount of deficit energy in the cluster. Therefore, one or
more MGs receive the extra excess energy in accordance with the
amount of energy required to meet its normal energy demand.
7.3. Results
The results obtained for each asymmetric model are presented and
discussed in the following sections for two distinct time instants. In this
study, it is assumed that each industrial MG integrates a compensation of
reactive energy to avoid payment of the respective invoice. Therefore,
the reactive energy consumption of each MG corresponds to a power
factor of 0.95 (cosφ ≥ 0.95 or tanφ ≤ 0.3).
Model 1 – Sell offers. The market clearing price and quantity graphs
for sell offers in time instants h = 15 and h = 22 are shown in Fig. 11.
The power-flow results for this model in time instants h = 15 and h = 22
are presented in Table 5. This includes magnitude and phase angle
values for the bus voltage.
As observed in the market clearing price and quantity graph for sell
offers in time instant h = 15 shown in Fig. 11, three sell offers are
represented for the three MGs with excess energy. The vertical line in
blue represents the total deficit energy. It corresponds to the sum of
deficit energy for the two remaining MGs which have deficit energy in
this time instant. In the market clearing price and quantity graph for sell
offers in time instant h = 22 also shown in Fig. 11, a sell offer is rep­
resented for the only MG with excess energy. In this case, load-shedding
is applied to any MG with deficit energy because the total excess energy
cannot meet the total deficit energy. The vertical line in red represents
the total deficit energy posterior to load-shedding, corresponding to the
total excess energy. Therefore, MGs with deficit energy are subjected to
a load decrease proportional to their amount of deficit energy, which is
represented as vertical dashes. For this model, the energy exchange price
corresponds to 0.15 €/kWh in both time instants. As shown in Table 5,
the bus voltage is within ideal values (approximately 1 pu) for all buses
of the network. The transmission losses are negligible in these time
Fig. 10. Sell and buy offers ranked based on ascending and descending order of energy price.
13
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
instants.
Model 2 – Buy offers. The market clearing price and quantity graphs
for buy offers in the same time instants h = 15 and h = 22 are shown in
Fig. 12. The power-flow results for this model in these time instants are
also presented in Table 5.
As observed in the market clearing price and quantity graph for buy
offers in time instant h = 15 shown in Fig. 12, two buy offers are rep­
resented for the two MGs with deficit energy. The vertical line in blue
represents the total excess energy and corresponds to the sum of excess
energy for the three remaining MGs with excess energy in this time
instant. In this case, the total excess energy equals the amount of deficit
energy because the total excess energy is higher than the total deficit
energy. In the market clearing price and quantity graph for buy offers in
time instant h = 22 also shown in Fig. 12, four buy offers are represented
for the four MGs with deficit energy. The vertical line in blue represents
the total excess energy and corresponds to the remaining MG with excess
energy in this time instant. In this case, only one MG receives the amount
of excess energy available because the total excess energy cannot meet
the total deficit energy. For this model, the energy exchange price is 0.20
€/kWh in time instant h = 15 and 0.30 €/kWh in time instant h = 22,
both prices are higher than the prices in model 1 because model 2 is
based on buy offers. As shown in Table 5, the bus voltage is within ideal
values (approximately 1 pu) for all buses of the network. The trans­
mission losses are negligible in these time instants.
Model 3 – Sell or buy offers. The market clearing price and quantity
graphs for sell or buy offers in the same time instants h = 15 and h = 22
are shown in Fig. 13. The power-flow results for this model in these time
instants are also presented in Table 5.
As observed in the market clearing price and quantity graph shown
in Fig. 13, buy offers are represented for all the MGs in the time instant h
= 15. This is because all MGs already ensured the supply of their critical
loads, due to the total excess energy exceeding the total amount of
deficit energy. The buy offers represented in the graph are set in
accordance with the amount of energy each MG needs in order to meet
its normal energy demand. The vertical line in blue represents the total
excess energy, and corresponds to the sum of excess energy of all the
MGs with excess energy in this time instant. It is worth mentioning that
the time instant h = 22 presents the same results as model 1 because
model 3 follows the same structure as model 1 when the total excess
energy cannot meet the total energy demand. For both time instants, the
energy exchange price corresponds to 0.15 €/kWh. Table 5 shows a bus
voltage within relatively ideal values (approximately 1 pu), with the
lowest voltage being 0.997 pu in bus 10 for time instant h = 15. There
are some transmission losses (around 1.64 kW) in time instant h = 15
due to an increased amount of energy being exchanged.
7.4. Discussion
When comparing the three models previously presented, it is
noticeable that model 3 constitutes a relatively better and more com­
plete model than the other two models. The main advantage of adopting
this model is the possibility of any unused excess energy to be exchanged
F. Bandeiras et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311

Fig. 11. Market clearing price and quantity graph for model 1 in time instants h = 15 and h = 22.

Table 5
Magnitude and phase angle values for the bus voltage in pu.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Voltage (h = 15) Voltage (h = 22) Voltage (h = 15) Voltage (h = 22) Voltage (h = 15) Voltage (h = 22)

Bus Mag Ang Mag Ang Mag Ang Mag Ang Mag Ang Mag Ang

1 1.001 0.213 1.001 0.017 1.001 0.213 1.001 0.000 1.002 2.108 1.001 0.017
2 1.001 0.213 1.001 0.017 1.001 0.213 1.001 − 0.000 1.002 2.107 1.001 0.017
3 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
4 1.001 0.214 1.001 0.017 1.001 0.214 1.001 − 0.000 1.002 2.118 1.001 0.017
5 1.000 0.214 1.000 0.014 1.000 0.214 1.000 − 0.049 1.000 5.629 1.000 0.014
6 1.001 0.215 1.001 0.017 1.001 0.215 1.001 0.000 1.002 2.117 1.001 0.017
7 1.000 0.854 1.000 0.066 1.000 0.854 1.000 0.049 1.000 3.170 1.000 0.066
8 1.001 0.199 1.001 0.022 1.001 0.199 1.001 0.006 0.999 1.999 1.001 0.022
9 1.000 0.199 1.000 0.014 1.000 0.199 1.000 0.006 1.000 1.161 1.000 0.014
10 1.000 0.183 1.001 0.024 1.000 0.183 1.001 0.009 0.997 1.297 1.001 0.024
11 1.000 − 0.244 1.000 0.003 1.000 − 0.244 1.000 0.009 1.000 0.310 1.000 0.003

Fig. 12. Market clearing price and quantity graph for model 2 in time instants h = 15 and h = 22.

and sold to the MGs with the highest buy price. This is dependent on the
operation cycle of each MG and whether batteries can be charged or not.
However, any extra excess energy can also be distributed to nearby
buildings located in the same network if none of the MGs participating in
the cluster can receive any excess energy (i.e. batteries at full capacity or
MGs operating at full rated power). In the time instants with load-
shedding, model 1 applies the excess energy to the MGs with deficit
energy in a proportional manner, while model 2 applies the excess en­
ergy to the MGs with deficit energy and highest buy price. In such a way,
model 1 takes the cooperation among multiple MGs into consideration,
because it uses sell offers for the excess energy and this energy is
distributed proportional to the MGs with deficit energy. On the other
hand, model 2 only supports the interests of individual MGs, because it
uses buy offers based on the energy needs of each MG, and only the MGs
with the highest buy price receive the excess energy. However, an
approach similar to model 1 which distributes excess energy in a pro­
portional manner to the MGs with deficit energy could be applied to
model 2 to support the cooperation among multiple MGs. In this

14
F. Bandeiras et al.
Fig. 13. Market clearing price and quantity graph for model 3 in time instants h = 15 and h = 22.
approach, MGs would need to set a pre-defined buy price for when load-
shedding is applied. For instance, this buy price can be equal to the
utility energy price in order to be as transparent as possible to each MG.
Another approach for model 2 or 3 could consist of setting pre-defined
buy prices for the excess energy to be supplied to loads with different
priority, as represented in Fig. 14. These buy offers for specific types of
loads would be ranked based on descending order of energy price. For
instance, MGs can set a high buy price for the amount of energy
necessary to supply all the loads with high priority (i.e. critical and
essential loads), a medium buy price for energy necessary to supply
loads with medium priority (i.e. non-critical loads but essential to pre­
vent financial loss), and a low buy price for any energy necessary to
supply the remaining loads.
Payment for power transactions in the cluster of MGs can be made
using virtual currency (i.e. cryptocurrency) or conventional payments.
Using cryptocurrency makes it possible to have almost instantaneous
payments through virtual transactions. These payments may be made by
the use of a public blockchain (e.g. Ethereum or Bitcoin). In such case,
the commercialization of P2P power will be implemented as a sidechain
(i.e. validation of data between blockchains) [96,102]. Despite its easy
implementation, the floating exchange rate for the cryptocurrency may
be an obstacle. The conventional payment solution consists of remu­
neration of MGs by utilities. In this case, utilities can invest in the con­
struction of P2P power grids, acting as operators of the power system.
The MGs participating in the P2P energy trade are still able to maintain
their interconnection to the traditional power distribution grid. In this
type of configuration, the MGs are affiliated with the utility company.
This makes it possible for an MG to supply power to another MG on
behalf of the utility, and payment to the MGs is based on the net quantity
Fig. 14. Excess energy prices in accordance with loads with different priority.
15
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
of energy supplied [102].
8. Conclusions
This paper addresses the control, architecture and energy trade in
clusters of MGs. To this end, this work provided a review of the most
relevant research made towards the project and the development of
smart grids. The research presented in the literature mainly focuses on
the control and energy management of MG clusters, with various control
strategies and algorithms being proposed to guarantee the optimal
operation and economic feasibility of the system. These control strate­
gies can follow centralized, decentralized and distributed architectures
or be implemented in layers with different tasks and goals through a
hierarchical architecture. Multi-agent technology and system-of-systems
structures have also been proposed in the literature for the control and
energy management of multiple MG systems. A comparison of these
control and energy-management architectures has been provided in this
work. The architecture of MG clusters in terms of layout, power con­
version technology and line frequency technology has also been
addressed. Moreover, P2P energy markets are another focus of the
research presented in the literature. This work has briefly dealt with
three distinct energy market designs which are suitable for imple­
mentation in MG clusters to facilitate and optimize the energy trade
among the participating prosumers, producers and customers. Finally, in
the field of protections, numerous electrical protection schemes have
been proposed in the literature concentrating on the protection of in­
dividual MGs in both grid-connected and islanded operation mode.
However, literature contributions for the electrical protection of MG
clusters are still scarce. It is worth mentioning that the scope of this
paper does not cover cybersecurity aspects such as privacy issues and
data protection against cyber-attacks in MG clusters. Nonetheless, this is
a very interesting and important topic, and may be considered for future
research work.
The study carried out in this paper has addressed the cooperation of
five industrial MGs operating in islanded mode for an entire day. An
algorithm has been developed in Matlab to evaluate the cooperation
among these MGs and coordinate their hourly energy trade through
three distinct market models with market clearing price/quantity in
asymmetric pool. The results show that a proportional distribution of
excess energy to the MGs with deficit energy is the most suitable in a
cooperative environment, while the supply of excess energy to the MGs
with the highest buy price only supports the interests of these individual
MGs.
F. Bandeiras et al.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the Portuguese Foundation for
Science and Technology (FCT) and by PIDDAC, under the research
project INDuGRID, ERANETLAC/0006/2014.
Trina Cairns (native English speaker and professional proofreader),
who reviewed the text of this work.
References
[1] Bandeiras F, Gomes M, Coelho P, Fernandes J, Moreira C. Protection systems and
earthing schemes for microgrids: main aspects and fault analysis. Int J Emerg Elec
Power Syst 2018;19(4).
[2] Moslehi K, Kumar R. A reliability perspective of the smart grid. IEEE Trans Smart
Grid 2010;1(1):57–64.
[3] Hirsch A, Parag Y, Guerrero J. Microgrids: a review of technologies, key drivers,
and outstanding issues. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;90:402–11.
[4] Microgrids for commercial and industrial companies: delivering increased power
reliability, lower energy costs and lower emissions. World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD); 2017. Available online: https://docs.wbcsd.
org/2017/11/WBCSD_microgrid_INTERACTIVE.pdf. [Accessed 11 May 2018].
[5] Insights Guidehouse. Microgrid deployment tracker 1Q20. Available online: htt
ps://guidehouseinsights.com/reports/microgrid-deployment-tracker-1q20.
[Accessed 20 July 2020].
[6] Schmitt L, Kumar J, Sun D, Kayal S, Venkata SS. Ecocity upon a hill: microgrids
and the future of the European city. IEEE Power Energy Mag 2013;11(4):59–70.
[7] Zafar R, Mahmood A, Razzaq S, Ali W, Naeem U, Shehzad K. Prosumer based
energy management and sharing in smart grid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;
82:1675–84.
[8] Espe E, Potdar V, Chang E. Prosumer communities and relationships in smart
grids: a literature review, evolution and future directions. Energies 2018;11(10).
[9] Meng L, Shafiee Q, Trecate GF, Karimi H, Fulwani D, Lu X, Guerrero JM. Review
on control of DC microgrids and multiple microgrid clusters. IEEE Trans Emerg
Sel Topics Power Electron 2017;5(3):928–48.
[10] Parhizi S, Lotfi H, Khodaei A, Bahramirad S. State of the art in research on
microgrids: a review. IEEE Access 2015;3.
[11] Alam MN, Chakrabarti S, Ghosh A. Networked microgrids: state-of-the-art and
future perspectives. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2019;15(3):1238–50.
[12] Saleh MS, Althaibani A, Esa Y, Mhandi Y, Mohamed AA. Impact of clustering
microgrids on their stability and resilience during blackouts. In: Proceedings of
the 2015 international conference on smart grid and clean energy technologies
(ICSGCE), Offenburg, Germany; 2015. p. 195–200.
[13] Arnett A, Putman E, Dempsey M. Enabling a grid of microgrids. Analysis and
policy observatory (APO). 2018. Available online: https://apo.org.au/sites/defau
lt/files/resource-files/2018/05/apo-nid175201-1104751.pdf. [Accessed 10
January 2019].
[14] Anastasiadis AG, Tsikalakis AG, Hatziargyriou ND. Operational and
environmental benefits due to significant penetration of microgrids and topology
sensitivity. In: Proceedings of the IEEE PES general meeting, providence. USA:
Rhode Island; 2010. p. 1–8.
[15] Vasiljevska J, Lopes JAP, Matos MA. Evaluating the impacts of the multi-
microgrid concept using multicriteria decision aid. Elec Power Syst Res 2012;91:
44–51.
[16] Liu H, Mahmoudi N, Chen K. Microgrids real-time pricing based on clustering
techniques. Energies 2018;11(6).
[17] Nunna H, Doolla S. Demand response in smart distribution system with multiple
microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2012;3(4):1641–9.
[18] Nikmehr N, Najafi-Ravadanegh S, Khodaei A. Probabilistic optimal scheduling of
networked microgrids considering time-based demand response programs under
uncertainty. Appl Energy 2017;198:267–79.
[19] Matamoros J, Gregoratti D, Dohler M. Microgrids energy trading in islanding
mode. In: Proceedings of the IEEE SmartGridComm 2012 symposium. Tainan
Taiwan; 2012. p. 49–54.
[20] Saad W, Han Z, Poor H, Basar T. Game-theoretic methods for the smart grid: an
overview of microgrid systems, demand-side management, and smart grid
communications. IEEE Signal Process Mag 2012;29(5):86–105.
[21] Chen J, Zhu Q. A game-theoretic framework for resilient and distributed
generation control of renewable energies in microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2017;8(1):285–95.
[22] Liu W, Gu W, Wang J, Yu W, Xi X. Game theoretic non-cooperative distributed
coordination control for multi-microgrids. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018;9(6):
6986–97.
[23] Saad W, Han Z, Poor H. Coalitional game theory for cooperative micro-grid
distribution networks. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on
communications (ICC), Kyoto, Japan; 2011. p. 1–5.
16
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
[24] Camarinha-Matos LM. Collaborative smart grids–A survey on trends. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;65:283–94.
[25] Prete CL, Hobbs BF. A cooperative game theoretic analysis of incentives for
microgrids in regulated electricity markets. Appl Energy 2016;169:524–41.
[26] Kasbekar GS, Sarkar S. Pricing games among interconnected microgrids. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE PES general meeting, San Diego, California, USA; 2012.
p. 1–8.
[27] Du Y, Wang Z, Liu G, Chen X, Yuan H, Wei Y, Li F. A cooperative game approach
for coordinating multi-microgrid operation within distribution systems. Appl
Energy 2018;222:383–95.
[28] Bandeiras F, Gomes M, Coelho P, Fernandes J, Camacho A, Castilla M. Microgrid
architecture evaluation for small and medium size industries. Int J Emerg Elec
Power Syst 2018;19(2).
[29] Tsado Y, Gamage K, Lund D. Communication technologies for smart grid
ubiquitous sensor network system. In: Proceedings of the 4th international
conference on power engineering, energy and electrical drives. Turkey: Istanbul;
2013. p. 1706–12.
[30] Tsado Y, Lund D, Gamage K. Resilient wireless communication networking for
smart grid BAN. In: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE international energy conference
(ENERGYCON), cavtat, Croatia; 2014. p. 846–51.
[31] Tsado Y, Gamage KAA, Adebisi B, Lund D, Rabie KM, Ikpehai A. Improving the
reliability of optimised link state routing in a smart grid neighbour area network
based wireless mesh network using multiple metrics. Energies 2017;10(3).
[32] Mao M, Wang Y, Chang L, Du Y. Operation optimization for multi-microgrids
based on centralized-decentralized hybrid hierarchical energy management. In:
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE energy conversion congress and exposition.
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA: ECCE); 2017. p. 4813–20.
[33] Kou P, Liang D, Gao L. Distributed EMPC of multiple microgrids for coordinated
stochastic energy management. Appl Energy 2017;185:939–52.
[34] Zhang W, Xu Y. Distributed optimal control for multiple microgrids in a
distribution network. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2019;10(4):3765–79.
[35] Gil NJ, Lopes JAP. Hierarchical frequency control scheme for islanded multi-
microgrids operation. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE lausanne power tech,
lausanne, Switzerland; 2007. p. 1–6.
[36] Ng EJ, El-Shatshat RA. Multi-microgrid control systems (MMCS). In: Proceedings
of the IEEE PES general meeting, providence. USA: Rhode Island; 2010. p. 1–6.
[37] Zheng G, Li N. Multi-agent based control system for multi-microgrids. In:
Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on computational intelligence
and software engineering. Wuhan: RPC; 2010. p. 1–4.
[38] Marvasti AK, Fu Y, DorMohammadi S, Rais-Rohani M. Optimal operation of
active distribution grids: a system of systems framework. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2014;5(3):1228–37.
[39] Zhao B, Wang X, Lin D, Calvin MM, Morgan JC, Qin R, Wang C. Energy
management of multiple microgrids based on a system of systems architecture.
IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018;33(6):6410–21.
[40] Korres GN, Hatziargyriou ND, Katsikas PJ. State estimation in multi-microgrids.
Eur Trans Electr Power 2011;21(2):1178–99.
[41] Madureira AG, Pereira JC, Gil NJ, Lopes JAP, Korres GN, Hatziargyriou ND.
Advanced control and management functionalities for multi-microgrids. Eur
Trans Electr Power 2011;21(2):1159–77.
[42] Vasiljevska J, Lopes JAP, Matos MA. Integrated micro-generation, load and
energy storage control functionality under the multi micro-grid concept. Elec
Power Syst Res 2013;95:292–301.
[43] Kargarian A, Falahati B, Fu Y, Baradar M. Multiobjective optimal power flow
algorithm to enhance multi-microgrids performance incorporating IPFC. In:
Proceedings of the IEEE PES general meeting, San Diego, California, USA; 2012.
p. 1–6.
[44] Wu J, Guan X. Coordinated multi-microgrids optimal control algorithm for smart
distribution management system. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2013;4(4):2174–81.
[45] Wang Z, Chen B, Wang J, Begovic MM, Chen C. Coordinated energy management
of networked microgrids in distribution systems. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2015;6
(1):45–53.
[46] Gholami A, Sun XA. Towards resilient operation of multi-microgrids: an MISOCP-
based frequency-constrained approach. IEEE Trans Control Netw Syst 2019;6(3):
925–36.
[47] Gao H, Liu J, Wang L, Wei Z. Decentralized energy management for networked
microgrids in future distribution systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2018;33(4):
3599–610.
[48] Ma W-J, Wang J, Gupta V, Chen C. Distributed energy management for
networked microgrids using online ADMM with regret. IEEE Trans Smart Grid
2018;9(2):847–56.
[49] Song N-O, Lee J-H, Kim H-M, Im YH, Lee JY. Optimal energy management of
multi-microgrids with sequentially coordinated operations. Energies 2015;8(8):
8371–90.
[50] Wang Z, Chen B, Wang J, Kim J. Decentralized energy management system for
networked microgrids in grid-connected and islanded modes. IEEE Trans Smart
Grid 2016;7(2):1097–105.
[51] Liu Y, Gooi HB, Xin H. Distributed energy management for the multi-microgrid
system based on ADMM. In: Proceedings of the IEEE PES general meeting,
chicago, Illinois, USA; 2017. p. 1–5.
[52] Wu X, Xu Y, Wu X, He J, Guerrero JM, Liu C-C, et al. A two-layer distributed
cooperative control method for islanded networked microgrid systems. IEEE
Trans Smart Grid 2020;11(2):942–57. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TSG.2019.2928330.
[53] Zhai X, Wang N. Multi-agent consensus algorithm-based optimal power dispatch
for islanded multi-microgrids. Processes 2019;7(10).
F. Bandeiras et al.
[54] Ouammi A, Dagdougui H, Sacile R. Optimal control of power flows and energy
local storages in a network of microgrids modeled as a system of systems. IEEE
Trans Contr Syst Technol 2015;23(1).
[55] Brearley BJ, Prabu RR. A review on issues and approaches for microgrid
protection. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;67:988–97.
[56] Dewadasa M, Ghosh A, Ledwich G. Protection of microgrids using differential
relays. In: Proceedings of the 2011 21st Australasian universities power
engineering conference. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: AUPEC); 2011. p. 1–6.
[57] Hosseini SA, Abyaneh HA, Sadeghi SHH, Razavi F, Nasiri A. An overview of
microgrid protection methods and the factors involved. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2016;64:174–86.
[58] Barra PHA, Coury DV, Fernandes RAS. A survey on adaptive protection of
microgrids and distribution systems with distributed generators. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2020;118:109524.
[59] Mirsaeidi S, Dong X, Said DM. Towards hybrid AC/DC microgrids: critical
analysis and classification of protection strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;90:97–103.
[60] Bui DM, Chen S-L. Fault protection solutions appropriately proposed for
ungrounded low voltage AC microgrids: review and proposals. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;75:1156–74.
[61] IEC TS 62898-1. (Microgrids - Part 1: guidelines for microgrid projects planning
and specification). International Electrotechnical Commission. first ed. 2017.
Switzerland; 2017.
[62] IEEE 2030.9-2019. IEEE recommended practice for the planning and design of the
microgrid. USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2020.
[63] Gopalan SA, Sreeram V, Iu H, Xu Z, Dong ZY, Wong KP. fault analysis of an
islanded multi-microgrid. In: Proceedings of the IEEE PES general meeting, San
Diego, California, USA; 2012. p. 1–6.
[64] Gopalan S, Sreeram V, Iu H, Mishra Y. A flexible protection scheme for an
islanded multi-microgrid. In: Proceedings of the 2013 4th IEEE PES innovative
smart grid technologies Europe (ISGT Europe). Denmark: Lyngb; 2013. p. 1–5.
[65] Abdali A, Noroozian R, Mazlumi K. Simultaneous control and protection schemes
for DC multi microgrids systems. Electr Power Energy Syst 2019;104:230–45.
[66] Yaqobi MA, Matayoshi H, Danish MSS, Lotfy ME, Howlader AM, Tomonobu S.
Low-voltage solid-state DC breaker for fault protection applications in isolated DC
microgrid cluster. Appl Sci 2019;9(4).
[67] Zhang F, Mu L. New protection scheme for internal fault of multi-microgrid.
Protect Control Mod Power Syst 2019;4(14).
[68] Xu Z, Yang P, Zheng C, Zhang Y, Peng J, Zeng Z. Analysis on the organization and
Development of multi-microgrids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:2204–16.
[69] Bullich-Massagué E, Díaz-González F, Aragüés-Peñalba M, Girbau-Llistuella F,
Olivella-Rosell P, Sumper A. Microgrid clustering architectures. Appl Energy
2018;212:340–61.
[70] Kumar D, Zare F, Ghosh A. DC microgrid technology: system Architectures, AC
grid interfaces, grounding schemes, power quality, communication networks,
applications, and standardizations aspects. IEEE Access 2017;5.
[71] Justo JJ, Mwasilu F, Lee J, Jung J-W. AC-microgrids versus DC-microgrids with
distributed energy resources: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:
387–405.
[72] Planas E, Andreu J, Gárate JI, Martínez de Alegría I, Ibarra E. AC and DC
technology in microgrids: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;43:726–49.
[73] Shahnia F, Bourbour S. A practical and intelligent technique for coupling multiple
neighboring microgrids at the synchronization stage. Sustain Energy Grids
Network 2017;11:13–25.
[74] Wu P, Huang W, Tai N, Liang S. A novel design of architecture and control for
multiple microgrids with hybrid AC/DC connection. Appl Energy 2018;210:
1002–16.
[75] Majumber R. Aggregation of microgrids with DC system. Elec Power Syst Res
2014;108:134–43.
[76] Bala S, Venkataramanan G. Autonomous power electronic interfaces between
microgrids. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE energy conversion congress and
exposition (ECCE). USA: San Jose, California; 2009. p. 3006–13.
[77] Goyal M, Ghosh A. Microgrids interconnection to support mutually during any
contingency. Sustain Energy Grids Network 2016;6:100–8.
[78] Majumber R, Bag G. Parallel operation of converter interfaced multiple
microgrids. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;55:486–96.
[79] Yoo H-J, Nguyen T-T, Kim H-M. Multi-frequency control in a stand-alone multi-
microgrid system using a back-to-back converter. Energies 2017;10(6).
17
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 133 (2020) 110311
[80] Zhou J, Zhang J, Cai X, Shi G, Wang J, Zang J. Design and analysis of flexible
multi-microgrid interconnection scheme for mitigating power fluctuation and
optimizing storage capacity. Energies 2019;12(11).
[81] Yang Y, Pei W, Huo Q, Sun J, Xu F. Coordinated planning method of multiple
micro-grids and distribution network with flexible interconnection. Appl Energy
2018;228:2361–74.
[82] Abdella J, Shuaib K. Peer to peer distributed energy trading in smart grids: a
survey. Energies 2018;11(6).
[83] Tushar W, Saha TK, Yuen C, Liddell P, Bean R, Poor HV. Peer-to-Peer energy
trading with sustainable user participation: a game theoretic approach. Cornell
University; 2018.
[84] Ilic D, Silva PG, Karnouskos S, Griesemer M. An energy market for trading
electricity in smart grid neighbourhoods. In: Proceedings of the 2012 6th IEEE
international conference on digital ecosystems and technologies (DEST).
Campione d’Italia, Italy; 2012.
[85] Liu T, Tan X, Sun B, Wu Y, Guan X, Tsang DHK. Energy management of
cooperative microgrids with P2P energy sharing in distribution networks. In:
Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on smart grid
communications. Miami, Florida, USA: SmartGridComm); 2015.
[86] Zhang C, Wu J, Zhou Y, Cheng M, Long C. Peer-to-Peer energy trading in a
Microgrid. Appl Energy 2018;220:1–12.
[87] Liu N, Yu X, Wang C, Li C, Ma L, Lei J. Energy-sharing model with price-based
demand response for microgrids of peer-to-peer prosumers. IEEE Trans Power
Syst 2017;32(5):3569–83.
[88] Tushar W, Saha TK, Yuen C, Morstyn T, McCulloch MD, Poor HV, Wood KL.
A motivational game-theoretic approach for peer-to-peer energy trading in the
smart grid. Appl Energy 2019;243:10–20.
[89] Li Z, Kang J, Yu R, Ye D, Deng Q, Zhang Y. Consortium blockchain for secure
energy trading in industrial internet of things. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 2018;14(8):
3690–700.
[90] Luisa Di Silvestre M, Gallo P, Guerrero JM, Musca R, Sanseverino ER, Sciumè G,
Vásquez JC, Zizzo G. Blockchain for power systems: current trends and future
applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews; 2019.
[91] Ahl A, Yarime M, Goto M, Chopra SS, Kumar NM, Tanaka K, Sagawa D. Exploring
blockchain for the energy transition: opportunities and challenges based on a case
study in Japan. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;117:109488.
[92] Andoni M, Robu V, Flynn D, Abram S, Geach D, Jenkins D, McCallum P,
Peacock A. Blockchain technology in the energy sector: a systematic review of
challenges and opportunities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2019;100:143–74.
[93] Ahl A, Yarime M, Tanaka K, Sagawa D. Review of blockchain-based distributed
energy: implications for institutional development. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;107:200–11.
[94] Mengelkamp E, Gärttner J, Rock K, Kessler S, Orsini L, Weinhardt C. Designing
microgrid energy markets: a case study: the Brooklyn Microgrid. Appl Energy
2018;210:870–80.
[95] Wang N, Xu W, Xu Z, Shao W. Peer-to-Peer energy trading among microgrids with
multidimensional willingness. Energies 2018;11(12).
[96] Mihaylov M, Moffaert KV. NRGcoin: virtual currency for trading of renewable
energy in smart grids. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on the
European energy market (EEM14). Poland: Krakow; 2014.
[97] Zhang C, Wu J, Long C, Cheng M. Review of existing peer-to-peer energy trading
projects. Energy Procedia 2017;105:2563–8.
[98] Parag Y, Sovacool BK. Electricity market design for the prosumer era. Nat Energy
2016;1.
[99] Sousa T, Soares T, Pinson P, Moret F, Baroche T, Sorin E. Peer-to-peer and
community-based markets: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2019;104:367–78.
[100] Prosumers’ role in the future energy system. Centre for Sustainable Energy
Studies; 2018. Available online: https://fmezen.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/0
6/CenSES-position-paper-prosumer-FINAL-Language-checked.pdf. [Accessed 5
December 2019].
[101] Souza ACZ, Castilla M. Microgrids design and implementation. Springer
International Publishing; 2019.
[102] Thakur S, Breslin JG. Peer to peer energy trade among microgrids using
blockchain based distributed coalition formation method. Technol Econ Smart
Grids Sustain Energy 2018;3(1):1–17.